https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=162.158.150.230&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T05:03:13ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1682:_Bun&diff=120304Talk:1682: Bun2016-05-18T12:53:29Z<p>162.158.150.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>The transcript is almost done, but the setting/image of each frame has to be added, and someone may want to fix my possible typos. This is my first contribute to explain xkcd! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I added the explanations about the images. Thanks for contributing! [[User:Ladidootdoot|Ladidootdoot]] ([[User talk:Ladidootdoot|talk]]) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assumed this was about hair buns, am I incorrect? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25|173.245.54.25]] 11:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think it's "bun" short for "bunny", an informal term meaning a rabbit (especially a cute one such as the ones shown in the comic). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 11:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Of course, 'buns' are also a euphemism for butt, which might clarify a thing or two, or at least add a more amusing context.<br />
<br />
I also believe the comic makes more sense when taking that meaning (bun for buttocks/derrière...) into account. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.230|162.158.150.230]] 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)J<br />
<br />
I know that this is absolutely just a personal gripe, but the website is called explain xkcd, not spell-out-everything-that-happens-in-xkcd. <br />
<br />
In relevance, this seems to be satire of current-gen's obsession with (mis)spelling things that are cute incorrectly (see: smol, birb, doge) and the situation in the comic is a role-reversal, with the teacher being a (teen/tween/memer etc.) and the students are accusing the class's professionalism. <br />
<br />
The point about 'rank' could of course be some fictional idea that a younger person could attach to a physical entity to make the world mor fun and interesting or something idk.<br />
I would add this theory, of course, but i have no idea what i'm even reading when i read this explanation and don't know where to add it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.161|108.162.250.161]] 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I absolutely agree I have slowly been editing different explanations to try to try to reflect this, but it is a very difficult and tedious process, if you can contribute do it.<br />
<br />
Hierarchy is misspelled. Unless it's a convoluted pun on heir - hare (almost homophones) ? [[User:blagae|blagae]]</div>162.158.150.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1682:_Bun&diff=120303Talk:1682: Bun2016-05-18T12:52:05Z<p>162.158.150.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>The transcript is almost done, but the setting/image of each frame has to be added, and someone may want to fix my possible typos. This is my first contribute to explain xkcd! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I added the explanations about the images. Thanks for contributing! [[User:Ladidootdoot|Ladidootdoot]] ([[User talk:Ladidootdoot|talk]]) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assumed this was about hair buns, am I incorrect? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25|173.245.54.25]] 11:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think it's "bun" short for "bunny", an informal term meaning a rabbit (especially a cute one such as the ones shown in the comic). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 11:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Of course, 'buns' are also a euphemism for butt, which might clarify a thing or two, or at least add a more amusing context.<br />
<br />
I also believe the comic makes more sense when taking that meaning (bun for buttocks/derrière...) into account.<br />
<br />
I know that this is absolutely just a personal gripe, but the website is called explain xkcd, not spell-out-everything-that-happens-in-xkcd. <br />
<br />
In relevance, this seems to be satire of current-gen's obsession with (mis)spelling things that are cute incorrectly (see: smol, birb, doge) and the situation in the comic is a role-reversal, with the teacher being a (teen/tween/memer etc.) and the students are accusing the class's professionalism. <br />
<br />
The point about 'rank' could of course be some fictional idea that a younger person could attach to a physical entity to make the world mor fun and interesting or something idk.<br />
I would add this theory, of course, but i have no idea what i'm even reading when i read this explanation and don't know where to add it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.161|108.162.250.161]] 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I absolutely agree I have slowly been editing different explanations to try to try to reflect this, but it is a very difficult and tedious process, if you can contribute do it.<br />
<br />
Hierarchy is misspelled. Unless it's a convoluted pun on heir - hare (almost homophones) ? [[User:blagae|blagae]]</div>162.158.150.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1621:_Fixion&diff=1077751621: Fixion2015-12-25T12:42:26Z<p>162.158.150.230: some wiki links fixed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1621<br />
| date = December 25, 2015<br />
| title = Fixion<br />
| image = fixion.png<br />
| titletext = My theory predicts that, at high enough energies, FRBs and perytons become indistinguishable because the detector burns out.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[This explanation is very incomplete. It is a small and terrible draft, only listing some immediate things I have noticed. This article should be structured as: General idea, table of explanations for each property.]<br />
<br />
In physics, there are still many big questions and mysteries. There are many phenomena which don't seem to fit, and we don't know how to explain yet. The "fixion" is satirically presented as a particle which acts as a [https://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina Deus Ex Machina] which solves all of these mysteries without any serious fundamental reasons.<br />
<br />
The style of the chart suggests a {{w|Feynmann diagram}} - an easy way of drawing particle interactions. Typically, fermions (the "solid" particles like electrons and quarks) are shown with solid lines, photons (and generally the weak-force-carrying bosons) are shown with wavy lines, gluons with spiralling lines and other mediating particles (such as pions in the nuclear force, or the Higgs) with a dotted line. Randall obeys these rules only very loosely, which makes sense - many of the things involved in this Feynmann diagram are either so theoretical that they have no widely used standard representation, or would never appear in a sensible diagram (spacecraft, for instance).<br />
<br />
{| width=100% cellpadding=5<br />
|'''Phenomenon''' || '''Description''' || '''Solved?'''<br />
|- <br />
| Main component of {{w|dark matter}} || Dark matter is needed to explain the difference between how we think gravity behaves and the actual behaviour of galaxies. The two leading theories of dark matter are that it is made of {{w|MACHOs}} (massive compact halo objects; effectively dead stars too dim to see) or {{w|WIMPs}} (weakly interacting massive particles; unknown particles which barely interact with matter except through gravity. || No, and proving the nature of dark matter will win someone the Nobel Prize.<br />
|-<br />
| Confines {{w|quark}}s and {{w|gluon}}s || {{w|Quark confinement}} means that we never see particles with {{w|colour charge}} (i.e. quarks and gluons) on their own. Try to separate them, and new one pops into existence. || The basic facts of confinement are well understood, but some of the details are too complicated to tease out.<br />
|-<br />
| Suppresses antimatter in early universe || The universe today is made almost entirely of matter. Antimatter and matter are identical, except that the charges are opposite, and that they annihilate when they come in contact with each other. So why is the universe made of matter? Why didn't the universe have equal amounts of both, and if it did, why didn't it annihilate itself immediately? This is a big question in physics today. Of course, the fixion explains this. || Lots of theories, not a shred of evidence for any yet. Now that the Higgs boson has been found, the biggest project for the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} experiments is to try to crack this.<br />
|-<br />
| Neutralizes monopoles || {{w|Magnetic monopoles}} should exist, according to many GUTs (grand unified theories) and string theories, but none have ever been seen. || No (despite claims that pop up in the news every year, creating a monopole-like state in the magnetic spins of a crystal is not the same as creating a real monopole.)<br />
|-<br />
| Spontaneous emits {{w|dark energy}} || Dark energy is needed to explain why the universe expands as quickly as it does... but so much dark energy is needed that it would make up 70% of the universe! The nature of dark energy is totally unknown. || Again, Nobel Prize territory.<br />
|-<br />
| Mediates {{w|proton decay}}, but then hides it. || Many GUTs predict that protons will decay, but experiments have shown the proton to have a half life of at least the age of the universe. || It's not ''necessarily'' a problem. All theories predict that proton decay is a very slow process (10<sup>32+</sup> seconds), which is consistent with the current data.<br />
|-<br />
| Broken symmetry causes ϴ=0, explaining unobserved neutron dipole moment || The {{w|neutron electric dipole moment}} is a measure of how balanced electric charge is inside the neutron. ϴ (theta) is a number in quantum chromodynamics which quantifies the the breaking of a type of symmetry called {{w|CP violation|CP symmetry}}. If ϴ is not 0, one result of this should be a neutron dipole moment. {{w|Symmetry breaking}} is a common explanation of effects in some areas of theoretical physics (for instance, it's an important part of Higgs' theory about why particles have mass), but normally it explains why a value is ''not'' zero. Presumably the fixion breaks CP symmetry independently of QCD, which means that ϴ can be 0 while preserving observed CP-breaking effects. || Again, it's not (yet) a problem - the predicted dipole moment is tiny, and we're only just reaching the point when we can measure it that accurately.<br />
|-<br />
| Introduces dispersion in perytons from kitchen microwaves, explaining fast radio bursts || {{w|Fast radio burst}}s are unexplained bursts of radio-frequency energy from space. {{w|Peryton}}s are things that ''look like'' FRBs, but come from Earth (specifically, from the microwave oven at Parkes Observatory. Randall's fixions makes some perytons change direction so they appear to come from space. || No, but it's probably something very big - a star collapsing to a black or (as now looks likely) a {{w|magnetar}} (magnetic neutron star)<br />
|-<br />
| Covers naked singularities || A {{w|naked singularity}} is like a black hole without an {{w|event horizon}}. So far no naked singularity has been observed (except, arguably, the big bang) and the {{w|cosmic censorship hypothesis}} suggests they can't exist, although some people have suggested ways of making them. || Not necessarily something that needs explaining - none have been seen, and most theories say they don't exist. If support grows for {{w|loop quantum gravity}}, then we might have to start really searching.<br />
|-<br />
| Causes {{w|alpha effect}} || A weird effect from chemistry, where putting an "alpha" atom with a {{w|lone pair}} of electrons close to a molecule makes the molecule more likely to give up its electrons. || Lots of competing explanations.<br />
|-<br />
| Causes coronal heating || For some reason the outer layer of the sun (the {{w|corona}}) is hotter than most reasonable theories predict. || It's a mystery, but it possibly has something to do with waves in the corona (for example, the {{w|High Resolution Coronal Imager}} has seen "braids" in the corona that whip around and unravel themselves).<br />
|-<br />
| Intercepts certain {{w|gravitational waves}} before they're observed. || If gravity behaves like the other forces, it must be conveyed by waves. Our best detector, {{w|LIGO}} has yet to detect any gravitational waves, though this is probably just due to the low probability of events that would be detectable. Only extreme events like binary black hole mergers are detectable with the current setup. The proposed LISA spacecraft will be able to see things like orbiting black holes and neutron stars. || Let's wait for the LISA data before jumping to conclusions.<br />
|-<br />
| Higgs-ish || The {{w|Higgs boson}} is a manifestation of the Higgs field... but many supersymmetry and string theories predict multiple Higgs-like particles. It's almost a prerequisite of any new theory that it has a Higgs-ish element. || N/A<br />
|-<br />
| Accelerates certain spacecraft during flybys || This refers to the {{w|flyby anomaly}} which is sometimes (but not always) seen when spacecraft fly close to planets and pick up more speed than expected. It's not always seen - ROSETTA had no flyby anomaly when it swooped extremely close to Mars. || It could be an unpredicted quirk of gravity and relativity... or it could be experimental error.<br />
|-<br />
| Superluminally smooths anistrophies in early universe (but adds faint polarization for BICEP3 to find) || The CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) is incredibly uniform. In fact it is so uniform that the conclusion is that these areas must have been in contact at some time in the early universe. But with the age of the universe, even traveling at the speed of light, opposite sides never touch. The explanation usually given is that the universe expanded really fast in the beginning ("inflation"). {{w|BICEP2}} is a radio telescope at the South Pole whose operators claim to have seen polarization in the CMB indicative of inflation. || As stated, inflation is the standard explanation and it holds up fairly well. Other studies haven't seen the polarization that BICEP2 has - the {{w|Planck (spacecraft)|Planck space telescope}} also suggests that BICEP2 team were looking at an unusually dusty bit of space, which could cause polarization.<br />
|-<br />
| Triggers Siberian sinkholes || Recently, several sinkholes opened up in remote parts of Siberia. The explanation is currently unknown. || While there are lots of weird theories, there's a good chance they were [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mystery-of-the-siberian-holes-at-the-end-of-the-world-solved-scientists-offer-explanation-9642988.html caused by melting permafrost] (possibly due to global warming)<br />
|-<br />
| Melts ice in "{{w|Snowball Earth}}" scenario || "Snowball Earth" is the theory that the whole planet was covered in ice at some point. To melt all that ice by the greenhouse effect would require far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than seems plausible. However, if volcanoes were to deposit black soot on the surface of the ice, it would start absorbing heat more efficiently (in scientific terms, the Earth's {{w|albedo}} would decrease) and that would also make the planet heat up. || There's no firm evidence one way or the other for Snowball Earth.<br />
|-<br />
| Transports neutrinos faster than light, but only on certain days through one area of France || Refers to the {{w|faster-than-light neutrino anomaly}}, where it seemed that a neutrino beam from {{w|CERN}} on the France/Switzerland border to the {{w|OPERA experiment}} in Italy travelled fast than light. This result was not able to be replicated. || In the end, there was no mystery. Just a dodgy cable causing a measurement error.<br />
|-<br />
| Suppresses sigma in experiments || Sigma (σ) refers to the {{w|standard deviation}} - a mathematical measure of how much an observed value differs from the expected value. For a formal scientific discovery in particle physics, the standard is 5 sigma which means that there is about a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the results were caused by random errors (of course, they could be caused by ''systematic'' errors, such as measurement problems). Some tantalising experiments have found interesting results at 3 or 4 sigma but either can't reach 5 sigma or {{w|Oops-Leon|are subsequently disproven}}. The fixion means that actually, these experiments ''have'' found what the experimenters wanted to find, but because of the fixion's dastardly behaviour, the sigma has been artificially lowered below the proof threshold.|| N/A<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The alt-text is a further joke about FRBs and perytons. GUTs normally predict that all the forces we see are the different low-energy versions of a single force which can only be seen at extremely high energies (much higher than any Earth-based collider could produce). A high-energy FRB would be a {{w|gamma ray burst}} and if it came from a close enough object, would obliterate all life on Earth... and wreck the sensitive electronics at Parkes Observatory.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>162.158.150.230